Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jordan Mendelson" <> | Subject | RE: Linux, UDI and SCO. | Date | Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:31:02 -0400 |
| |
> The stability of closed drivers is an issue, as is what sort of work will > be required to get the kernel to support UDI. If it means doing things in > some bass-ackward way, perhaps UDI is best left alone. But if it can be > done cleanly, it probably should be done. After all, until Adaptec opened > up, we supported the 2940 and such as best we could, but said 'buy > Buslogic if you possibly can'. As has already been pointed out, it may > be possible to implement the UDI framework such that it can give useful > debugging info about what a UDI driver is doing, which would help both > with pointing the finger at faulty OEM UDI drivers and with reverse > engineering a native driver.
Curious, wouldn't having UDI drivers running under Linux make them fairly easy to reverse engineer? I mean, the drivers will be calling linux kernel functions through the UDI kernel interface, so if we trace every call we should be able to get a gist of how the driver works.
Just something to think about.
Jordan
-- Jordan Mendelson : http://jordy.wserv.com Web Services, Inc. : http://www.wserv.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |